Recently, the Supreme Court has promulgated the "Several Provisions on Issues Concerning the Enforcement of Property Punishments," which will come into force on June 1 of this year. Compared with the currently applicable "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Property Punishments," it clarifies and regulates the problems encountered in the enforcement of property punishments in recent years.
In judicial practice, primary punishments are often emphasized while supplementary punishments are neglected, making the enforcement of property punishments seem optional. According to incomplete statistics, the enforcement rate of property punishments is less than half, and the timely and accurate enforcement of criminal judgments cannot be ensured.
By comparing the two judicial interpretations, the new interpretation proposes solutions to existing practical problems. First, it clarifies how and when to initiate the enforcement of property punishments. Article 2 of the new interpretation explicitly stipulates that the people's court of first instance shall file for enforcement of the legal documents concerning property punishment enforcement after the criminal judgment or ruling rendered by itself becomes legally effective, or after receiving the legally effective criminal judgment or ruling from a superior people's court. The court of first instance shall file for enforcement immediately after the judgment becomes effective, which was not specified in the original interpretation.
Second, it clarifies the court and specific department responsible for the enforcement of property punishments. Article 10 of the original interpretation provides that property punishments shall be enforced by the people's court of first instance; if the criminal's property is located in another place, the people's court of first instance may entrust the people's court at the place where the property is located to enforce it on its behalf. In judicial practice, there have been situations where enforcement is carried out by the enforcement bureau, the criminal division, the judicial police team, or a combination thereof. Additionally, for cross-regional enforcement, there was no provision on which level of court to entrust. The new interpretation further clarifies this on the basis of the original interpretation. Article 1 of the new interpretation stipulates that property punishments shall be enforced by the organ responsible for judgment enforcement of the people's court of first instance; if the property to be enforced is located in another place, the people's court of first instance may entrust the people's court at the same level in the place where the property is located to enforce it on its behalf.
Third, it clarifies the time limit for enforcing the confiscation of property in property punishments. The original interpretation did not provide for this. Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the new interpretation stipulates that for the enforcement of confiscation of property, the people's court shall enforce it immediately. That is to say, if the judgment is for confiscation of property, there is no issue of time limit; enforcement shall commence immediately once the judgment becomes legally effective.
In addition, during the enforcement of property punishments, there are also situations such as failure to pay fines and absence of property to be confiscated. In particular, the transfer of property poses significant difficulties to enforcement. I believe that effective measures currently used in enforcement work can be drawn upon to enhance the punitive力度 and强度 of property punishments, thereby ensuring the performance of judgments and safeguarding the authority of the law.